Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-06-10
THE DRAINAGE CLAIMS DECISION.

Objection is made to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the drainage cases, and
demand for a rehearing is preferred by a
San Francisco Journal with good deal of
warmth. The directors insist that the
decision renders great abuses possible
But what sort Of an argument is this in
response to the demand for justice Sup
pose it 20 be true that some one should be
able to influence Legislature to pass, and
a Governor to approve, a law unconstitu-
tional ans void and that thereupon he
should further influence the Legislature to
contract with him under the law as basis
for an appeal for relief to subsequent
Legislature, likewise to be corrupted and
bought, when the bottom should have
been knocked out of the law-suppose all
these things-what then If it is all pos
sible as copjectured, is it any reason for
refusing TO do justice in the case of a bona
tide holder of claim against the State, for
work done by its order, made likewise in
good faith?
Here is a case where the Legislature, in
perfect good faith, and in the belief that it
was discreet and for the best interests of
the people, passed an Act, and the
Governor, in good faith, and believing it
wise and constitutional, approved it. In
good faith the State employed citizens to
do work under that Act, and they went
ON under the contract and expended means
and performed labor. The law was there
after declared unconstitutional, and the
citizens SO employed by the State there
upon appealed to the Legislature for
equitable relief. The Supreme Court now
holds that the Legislative body had power
TO grant the relief; that it was
not barred from doing equity by
the error of former body
of its class. That is all there
Is in the decision. The objection to it is
wildly absurd, for it proceeds upon the
hypothesis that as future Legislators may
be corrupted, therefore when in good
faith the State leads a citizen to
contract with it, it must not
be permitted to keep its bond if it hap
pens that the law on which the contract is
based is void. True enough, legislators
may be corrupted, as they have been, but
likewise they may, as they have been, be
bought and sold to do wrong under laws
clearly constitutional, aud strictly within
the legitimate bounds of their preroga-
tives. The objections of the Cal and the
Chronicle, of San Francisco, to the decision
proceed only upon the possibility of fraud
being perpetrated by the passage of I'M
constitutional laws, the letting of contracts
or issuing Of bonds under them and the
granting of relief thereafter to copartners
of the Legislators in the crime. But we
repeat what of it? Since legislators and
rascals may collude TO defraud the State
under constitutional laws, what wrong is
done by holding that the Legislature is
rot prevented from doing equity where
citizens were led to act under law at the
time believed to be of binding effect? The
people must repose trust somewhere; I'M
der our system it is in the Legislature,
with the judicial department as a check to
prevent itexceeding its jurisdiction. If the
people send up corrupt Legislators, in any
instance, they must take the consequences.
But that such bodies may do wrong; that
they are at times venal aud corrupt; that
conspiraeies are formed against the public
treasury, cuts no figure whatever in the
argument of 4 claim for equitable relief.